Lucas v The Queen [1970] HCA 14

Lucas v The Queen [1970] HCA 14

The appeal failed because the evidence, although capable of showing intoxication, was insufficient to establish that a mental disease or disorder had supervened so as to found insanity; the trial judge adequately left and explained the insanity defence; the law did not require the judge to inform the jury of the consequences of a verdict of not guilty on the ground of insanity; and the sentences were within the proper exercise of the trial judge's discretion.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal/application for Leave to Appeal / Application for Extension of Time, Leave to Appeal, and Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Time extended to lodge notice of appeal and notice of motion for leave to appeal; leave to appeal refused; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['attempted Murder' 'attempted Rape' 'insanity Defence' 'intoxication' 'jury Directions' 'special Verdict of Not Guilty on the Ground of Insanity' 'leave to Appeal' 'sentence Appeal']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'sentencing'] ['attempted Murder' 'attempted Rape' 'insanity Defence' 'intoxication' 'jury Directions' 'special Verdict of Not Guilty on the Ground of Insanity' 'leave to Appeal' 'sentence Appeal']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal/application for Leave to Appeal / Application for Extension of Time, Leave to Appeal, and Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the trial judge failed adequately to instruct the jury on the defence of insanity.' 'Whether the trial judge was bound to inform the jury of the consequences of a verdict of not guilty on the ground of insanity.' 'Whether the convictions should be disturbed because of complaints about the summing up.' 'Whether the sentences imposed were excessive.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal failed because the evidence, although capable of showing intoxication, was insufficient to establish that a mental disease or disorder had supervened so as to found insanity; the trial judge adequately left and explained the insanity defence; the law did not require the judge to inform the jury of the consequences of a verdict of not guilty on the ground of insanity; and the sentences were within the proper exercise of the trial judge's discretion.

Court Disposition

Time extended to lodge notice of appeal and notice of motion for leave to appeal; leave to appeal refused; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Extend time to give notice of appeal and notice of motion.' 'Leave to appeal refused: appeal dismissed.']